Collectivistic government busybodies, whom we call "politicians,"
certainly think that, by keeping the United States mired in the
Middle East, we will maintain our "national security."
They also go on to say that the protection of "national
security" is vital for the survival of our country. But what
the collectivists refuse to acknowledge -- perhaps even to
themselves -- is that national security is nothing more than a
government construct for the purpose of covering up any political,
militaristic, and illegal wrongdoings and defending the modern
American Empire and its nation-state-building activities from its
dissidents and critics during a time of war.

Presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ) epitomizes that mentality, especially
given his comment on
the national security issue during the CNN
debate held at the Reagan
Library on January 30. In his rejoinder to Anderson
Cooper's question regarding his recent comment that U.S. forces
would remain in Iraq for the next 100 years, he stated:

"[T]he point is that we need to protect America's national security
interest. It's not a matter of presence. It's a matter of casualties.

"We are succeeding. We are succeeding. And I unequivocally put my career
and my political fortunes on the line and unequivocally said we're
going to support this surge. We're not going to talk about timetables
or anything else; we're going to talk about winning and what's
necessary to win."

"Protect America's national security interest"? Who is he kidding?
What about Iraq's "national security interest," if
there is indeed such a thing? Why should a politician like McCain be
concerned about America's "national security interest,"
when the country does not have, nor has never had, a "national
security interest"? After all, aren't we really talking
about the U.S. federal government's "national security
interest," not the United States' own "interest"?

The trouble with McCain's assertion is that it does not hold any political and
militaristic water whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that
national security is an invention concocted by the state for the
means of advancing the interests and agendas of the political and
military establishments. This is a concerted effort to just sweep any
signs of political and military wrongdoings under the government rug.
It is merely an instrument for the politicians to save face and to
shield themselves from any embarrassment that can arise should any
war or any other military conflict becomes a public disaster.

Additionally, the collectivists in both the Republican and Democratic camps treat
national security as though it were a living, breathing entity. More
than that, it's a great campaign issue, because "national
security" and the other government term "national
defense" are viable sound bites used to win elections. These
terms have nothing to do with the principles of the candidate, but
they certainly have everything to do with the candidate pulling out
all the stops to dodge his opponent's attacks and score
political points, just so that the average voter will secure his vote
for the "winning candidate."

Libertarians, free marketers, and like-minded advocates of limited government need to
expose "national security" for what it really is:
national security is government security. It has nothing to do with
protecting the country, although Americans are quite capable of
defending themselves from the vile influences and controls of the
state. However, it has everything to do with the protection of the
health of the state. After all, war and a foreign policy of
interventionism are nothing but government programs to strengthen the
modern welfare-warfare state and to use "national security"
as a way to rewrite history and spin it to propagandize and regiment
our society.

As the early 20th century leftist writer Randolph Bourne famously noted,
"War
is the health of the state." How true that is in
the times in which we live.